search results matching tag: time shift

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (15)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (0)     Comments (50)   

Ozzy Man Reviews: Bunny vs Dogs

A Mesmerizing Line Of Caterpillars

bareboards2 says...

Well, after fiddle farting around, and trying to isolate a screen shot that shows all their little heads going up at the same time.... I didn't succeed.

So it appears that the simultaneous head lifting was an optical illusion and not a video manipulation.

Time shift is definitely going on. But it appears they are really doing this.

Nature, you freaky.

makach said:

I agree, looks like time shifting and video composition.

A Mesmerizing Line Of Caterpillars

makach says...

I agree, looks like time shifting and video composition.

bareboards2 said:

Are we sure this isn't photo manipulation? I was willing to buy that maybe they were on some sort of migration.

But when all their little heads when up at the same time?

Not sure I buy it.

Cool video. Just may not be nature.

I expect Captain Obvious to show up now and school me on my naivety.

Amazing acrobatics

newtboy says...

I love this kind of acrobatics, but the ridiculous, non stop use of time shifting throughout the entire video became so annoying that I just can't bring myself to give it an upvote.

This guy shows off his driving skills in the office

SFOGuy says...

Where's the slow motion of the rear of the cart spraying the foam off of a latte cup left artfully at the edge of the desk? and the time shifted clip of the guy in an office chair flying over his head between two desks in a monkey suit?

That's Close Enough

Real Time - Dr. Michael Mann on Climate Change

Asmo says...

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

RUSSELL BRAND - DMT - CAN WE EXPERIENCE A DIFFERENT REALITY?

1933 - Self-Defence Tutorial

rich_magnet says...

Upvote the vintage *time-shifting footage, delivered by a swell 7-stone-odd *gal. Side note: fan service @ 1.43. Vintage blushing (in black and white) ensues as all nearby gentlemen are obliged to sit down and cross their legs.

Girl Narrowly Avoids Debris Falling from Soccer Stadium

Turn down for What - Boat edition

Mark Ronson: How sampling transformed music

ChaosEngine says...

That position doesn't make any sense. Context matters and there are always exceptions to every rule. It seems to be a common ideal of the right that complex systems can have simple solutions. Sometimes they can, but mostly they don't.

Rationalism may allow me to "take a consistent position based on unchanging principles", but it doesn't mean I have to blindly apply those principles regardless of the circumstances.

For a really simple example, let's take homicide. Killing, I'm sure we're agreed is wrong. So everyone who takes a human life should be sanctioned, yes?
Except in self-defence.
Except in a war.
What about other mitigating factors too. Accidental death. Killing by someone mentally incapable of knowing what they're doing.
We could debate the merits of each individual case all day long, but the end point is that yes, at some point we make a judgement, and ultimately that leads to a law.

So it goes for IP law. Yes, current IP in the US is not only broken, but badly broken and broken in many different ways from patent trolling to DMCA lunacy.

That doesn't mean we just throw out the whole damn thing.

We don't have to make an empirical claim about all law. We make judgements based on what a "reasonable person" considers fair. Yeah, that shifts back and forth and sometimes (like now) it's hideously broken, but that's why we have the ability to change laws.

It's not like that everywhere. NZ, for example, has some quite reasonable provisions in it's IP law (or had, they may have changed recently). I can't sell copies of a song I bought, but I can format shift it, time shift it, etc. That seems reasonable to me (and I suspect, to most people).


I must confess I had to look up "hermeneutics" (good word).

Trancecoach said:

More than reading this article, I point you towards the commentary on this article which reads:

"This is good, but the problem with reformers who do not want to totally abolish patent and copyright is that their arguments basically amount to "the law has gone too far" (people like Khanna, Tom Bell, Alex Tabarrok, Jerry Brito, Cory Doctorow, Public Knowledge, the EFF, Lawrence Lessig, and so on). That requires an empirical claim as dubious as those of advocates of the current IP regime. The only principled case for IP reform is one that also makes the case for IP abolition."

This, although not specifically stated, this comment demonstrates a preference for rigor when it comes to justifications for any position on any issue. Rationalism allows you take a consistent position based on unchanging principles. Hermeneutics as well as other modes that deal with all issues as a matter of "preference" or bias can seem rather arbitrary and harder to defend through rational argumentation.

Hand Made Beautiful Dining Room Table - The Priceless Gift

Reversing Arrow Optical Illusion

Reversing Arrow Optical Illusion

messenger says...

This is the same as calling an image through a magnifying glass an optical illusion. It's no more an optical illusion than the light bending through the lenses in your eyeballs.

Incidentally, this also has got nothing to do with the brain, and isn't art.

*nochannel

*Music
*Time Shift
*Water



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon